Film Medium Format Cameras

[Kayaker72]

A quick update. I have a couple more rolls of film that I am developing, so I'll share a few more film/digital comparative examples when I get the film back...in a couple week

But I am mostly done with this side project and, unexpectedly, it has been a lot of fun and very interesting.

First, I picked up the Mamiya 645 1000S at my local shop really just to give "medium format" a try. The body was $300 and the 80 f/1.9 C lens was $330. So my initial investment was low and I figured if I didn't like it, I could resell and not loose much at all.

But, I decided to expand my Mamiya kit and last week picked up the 45 f/2.8 C and 150 f/2.8 A. In terms of FF equivalence, this gives me a 28 mm, 50 mm, and 90 mm lenses with equivalent DoF ranging from f/1.2 to f/1.7. With shipping, this was another $715, so I am in this a total of $1,345.

I did this for a couple of reasons:

1. I did figure out that these lenses could be adapted onto the RF mount using the Fotodiox tilt/shift adapter giving them added flexibility for future use.
2. I am enjoying shooting film more than I thought I would. The jury is still out on if there is an IQ difference, but being methodical, thinking of each shot, trying to make it count, and when you get it, you are done because you only have 15 shots to a roll. I've enjoyed that process. With digital there is no cost to additional images, I take a lot of additional images and I am always looking for that next image. I've enjoyed being more methodical and limited because there is a cost to additional images and you are limited to a number of exposures.
3. Image quality. Jury is still out on if I think one is better over the other. But the jury is completely in on the fact that film and digital are simply different. What I originally referenced in that Slanted lens shoot out, I've seen multiple times. Simply put, Film handles over exposure exceptionally well but does not handle (i.e. not recoverable) underexposure and digital is the exact opposite. Perhaps the most comprehensive test is here where they did a +/- 10 stop (so 21 images) comparison of film and digital and concluded, for this scene film and sensor, digital had a range of -6 to +2 stops and film had a range of -2 to +10 stops. If you watch, you may disagree with any number of things (I do, for starters, I wouldn't call this dynamic range, but exposure latitude), but the trend has always been there, digital handles recovering shadows much better than film which handles whites/highlights much better than digital.
4. OVF. I do not mind the R5 EVF. But even going to the 5DIV, I enjoy the OVF. But this is next level. I actually laughed out loud when shooting last week as it was just after sunset and my Mamiya OVF was brighter than the scene with such amazing detail. It was fun.
5. Resolution. These are not 20-30% changes in linear resolution/detail. I've had a version of the chart below for digital for years but have added film sizes to it during this exercise.

Simply put, even my Mamiya 645 has 2.7x the surface area of FF. But, start getting into larger MF sizes, 6x7 or even 6x9, they have 4.3x and 5.6x the surface area of a FF sensor. Now, Fujifilm claims to have film that can resolve 160 lp/mm. Most people seem to think high end film is more like 80 lp/mm. I found several references to MF and LF lenses resolving 40 to >80 lp/mm. So, using 80 lp/mm, larger MF formats are ~100 MP equivalent while LF is equivalent to 320 to 1,280 MPs. You can see back in the days before photoshop why MF/LF had the mystique they did, it was the only way to get more detail.

Quick side note, but I am very curious about some of the 645 images taken compared to my R5. The linear resolution, if 80 lp/mm is accurate, should not be that different as 56 mm x 80 lp/mm x 2 pixel/lp = 8,960 on the long axis while the R5 is 8,192 pixels. The difference in MP in the above table is more about different aspect ratios (645 MF is taller).

So, jury still out on the actual comparative IQ of Film. But Film has it's own characteristics and I've enjoyed shooting it.

I am good having that tool in my photography toolbox.

I do consider myself lucky to have the Mamiya 645 1000S. It seems like a great little system. The glass is excellent. No light meter, so I may pick up a pentaprism that has one (camera is modular, so I can just swap out a pentaprism with light meter for the waist level viewfinder) that would be another $240. Overall, very much worth $1,345 to me.

As I've learned and looked, I've of course wondered about other systems. In particular, I wonder if a handheld Mamiya 7ii (range finder with 6x7 format) would get more use for size/weight travel. People rave about the glass. It is popular and out of production so it is actually getting pretty expensive. There is also the Mamiya 6 and Fuji also has some rangefinders, but do not seem to have the same acclaim as the Mamiya's.

I could have stayed with Mamiya and more recent 645 bodies had AF, metering, and exchangeable backs. Seem like good systems, but I did hear them referred to as "plasticy" which is one reason I felt good about picking up the mostly all manual and metal 1000S available at my local shop. There are also the RB and RZ systems that are 6x7 from Mamiya, but the bodies/lenses are much larger than the 645. I've heard reference that they are better as "studio" lenses.

Also, if I do like the IQ out of the images I've created and if I was to go back and start from scratch, I might end up with my Mamiya or I may very well have spent a bit more money and gone with Hasselblad 500 series. It is probably the most similar to what I have in terms of size, weight and form factor, but shoots 6x6, has Zeiss lenses (better than Mamiya?), and, maybe most importantly, the system is still somewhat alive. Sure Hasselblad has gone digital but they do have a digital back that would mount to their 500 series bodies. So, you could have a body, both film or digital backs, and swap out as desired. Granted, the digital backs are >$5k, and a different size than the film. On the Mamiya side, while 6x6 is larger, but as soon as you crop, you are likely back to something around a 645 and I do not typically shoot square images, so I would be cropping. There are Phase One (who bought Mamiya) and Leaf digital backs from some Mamiya cameras, but not the 1000S.

Before doing anything more, I want to evaluate more images that I've created. Then, we'll see.